The Utah Supreme Court issued a divided opinion in *State v. James*, reversing a Court of Appeals decision that would have granted a new sentencing hearing to a defendant who received prison time despite prosecutors recommending probation under a plea agreement.
Franklin James pleaded guilty to multiple felony counts as part of a plea bargain with the State of Utah. Under the agreement, prosecutors dropped several charges against James and agreed to recommend probation at sentencing. However, the Third District Court in Salt Lake County rejected the prosecution's recommendation and sentenced James to prison instead.
The case reached the Utah Court of Appeals, which reversed the sentence and ordered a new sentencing proceeding. The appeals court based its decision on the fact that James was not invited to allocute—meaning he was not given the opportunity to personally address the district court before sentencing. The appeals court applied plain error analysis and concluded that the district court's failure to offer James the chance to speak warranted reversal.
To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals borrowed legal precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Under that federal circuit's approach, defendants can demonstrate the prejudice required for plain error relief by simply showing that the trial court failed to offer them the opportunity to allocute, regardless of whether they actually requested to speak.
The Utah Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and declined to adopt the Tenth Circuit's rule for Utah state courts. Associate Chief Justice Pearce authored the majority opinion, joined by Justice Petersen and Justice Pohlman. The majority found that the Court of Appeals erred in automatically granting relief based solely on the lack of an invitation to allocute.
The case highlights the tension between judicial discretion in sentencing and the procedural rights of defendants, particularly when plea agreements include sentencing recommendations that courts ultimately reject. While prosecutors and defendants may negotiate plea deals that include specific sentencing recommendations, trial courts retain discretion to impose different sentences if they find the recommendations inappropriate.
The allocution right—allowing defendants to speak before sentencing—serves as an important procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings. However, the Utah Supreme Court's decision suggests that technical violations of this right do not automatically warrant reversal, particularly when defendants do not actively seek to exercise the right.
Justice Hagen authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Durrant, though the specific details of their disagreement with the majority are not fully detailed in the available record. The split decision reflects ongoing debates within Utah's highest court about procedural requirements in criminal sentencing.
The case originated in the Third District Court under Judge Randall N. Skanchy and carries significant implications for how Utah courts handle plea agreements where judges reject prosecutorial recommendations. The State was represented by Attorney General Derek E. Brown and Assistant Solicitor General Daniel W. Boyer, while James was represented by attorney Erick Grange.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Dec. 11, 2024, and filed its opinion on Nov. 13, 2025. The decision reverses the Court of Appeals and appears to uphold James's original prison sentence, though the specific details of his crimes and sentence length are not specified in the available court documents.
This ruling may influence future cases where defendants challenge sentences that exceed plea agreement recommendations, particularly regarding the procedural requirements courts must follow. The decision suggests Utah courts will not automatically grant relief for technical allocution violations unless defendants can demonstrate actual prejudice from the procedural error.
The case also demonstrates the complex interplay between state and federal precedents in criminal procedure. While Utah's Court of Appeals was willing to adopt federal circuit court reasoning, the state Supreme Court chose to chart its own course, emphasizing state court independence in interpreting procedural requirements.
For criminal defense attorneys, the ruling clarifies that clients must actively seek allocution opportunities if they wish to preserve potential appeals based on procedural violations. The decision also reinforces trial court discretion in rejecting plea agreement recommendations, even when such rejection may disappoint defendants who believed they had secured favorable sentencing terms through negotiation.
The opinion marks an important development in Utah criminal procedure law and sets precedent for how the state's courts will handle similar allocution challenges in future cases involving plea agreement disputes.